Luyện nói tiếng Anh bằng Shadowing qua video: The Future Of Reasoning
Đang tạo bài học...
1
Hey Vsauce, Michael here.
2
Where is your mind?
3
Is it in your head?
4
I mean that's where your brain is and your brain helps you remember and plan and make judgments and solve problems.
5
But you also remember and plan with phones and notes
6
and calendars and you make judgments and solve problems with all sorts of things.
7
You know, when you think about it,
8
the brain is really just a wet lump of fat and protein no firmer than a blob of tofu.
9
But the mind is huge.
10
It's an ever -expanding organ of tissue and wood and stone and steel and people because of communication.
11
Communication allows us to even make other people extensions of our minds.
12
We can access their memories and perceptions and knowledge by simply asking. Or not.
13
I don't need to learn how to fix a car and practice medicine and vulcanize rubber or remember everything.
14
Other people are doing that for me just as I do things for them.
15
We are a species of individuals that is also one big interdependent lumbering growth,
16
a frantic blur of flesh and concrete,
17
a techno -sapien powered by imaginations and passions made real by a hallowed faculty we call reason.
18
Reason, it is said, guides us to truer knowledge and better decisions.
19
It's allowed us to increase life expectancy,
20
suffer less, work together better and it's bound to take us further and higher until the end of time. Or is it?
21
The organ we use to reason takes millions of years to evolve, but the fruits of reason grow rapidly and are ever accelerating.
22
Over the next four decades, we are expected to build the equivalent of another New York City every month.
23
And more concrete was installed in the last two decades, outside the United States, than the US installed during the entire 20th century.
24
This growth means that quality of life around the world is rising.
25
It means that electricity, manufactured goods, food, comfort and transportation are all becoming more common and accessible.
26
But there are hints that reason
27
and logic are struggling against the complexity of it all against our growing dependence on the things we've built
28
and their unintended consequences.
29
Nearly every part of life as we know it today involves
30
or relies on a process that releases molecules with lopsided electrical charges.
31
This property causes them to absorb and re -emit thermal radiation, pinging it around so that it escapes into space more slowly.
32
Having more warmer parcels of air means stronger weather events.
33
They can't be pinned to any particular extreme storm, but they make extreme storms in general more extreme and frequent.
34
What's at stake isn't just bad weather, it's disaster.
35
It's more lives lost, more property lost, it's more droughts, more hunger, more famine, more people needing refuge,
36
and an even greater reliance on the very things that caused the problem in the first place.
37
In total, we release about 51 billion tons of such gases every year and we need to release zero.
38
But how do you rethink everything?
39
Who gets to direct the costs and trade -offs?
40
How do you achieve collaboration between nearly every local and national government when what works in one place won't work everywhere,
41
when decisions affect jobs in one place and food in another,
42
when not just things need to be rethought but also habits and traditions and values.
43
How do you achieve consensus when a problem isn't obvious to the senses, is far away in space and time,
44
requires solutions that affect people in different ways, and as a product of science always carries some uncertainty.
45
The philosopher Timothy Morton calls something so massively distributed in time and space and so viscous,
46
so sticky that it adheres to all that touch it, a hyper object.
47
Every civilization that grows at the speed of reason must at some point face hyper objects. In fact
48
The fact that we still haven't found evidence of intelligent life beyond Earth has been brought up as evidence
49
that some sort of great filter might exist that few civilizations manage to get past.
50
That a hyper object like our impact on the planet might be such a great filter is not a new idea.
51
What it might take to solve it is the topic of Bill Gates' How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.
52
And I decided to do this video in partnership with him
53
and his team because the way we deal with hyper -objects reveals a lot about the mind.
54
It's easy and common to think that we would all be better off if everyone was just more rational, right?
55
But what if reasoning wasn't built for what we've become?
56
Let's begin by looking at behavioral inertia.
57
Behavioral inertia is the tendency to keep doing what you're already doing.
58
Status quo bias.
59
It can be a frustrating bias if you desire change, but its origin isn't a flaw.
60
If an organism has managed to survive long enough to reproduce and provide and care for its offspring,
61
then the state of its world was sufficient for its genes to spread.
62
That's all it takes to persist.
63
The types of organisms we see around us will naturally be those that managed to persist and didn't,
64
after reaching that point, rock the boat too much.
65
So, behavioral inertia can help slow down the accumulation of unintended consequences and the loss of ideas that work,
66
but it can also slow down innovation and adaptation.
67
If the environmental impacts of our society were more immediate and unignorable,
68
it wouldn't be so tempting to apply this inertial break.
69
But emissions are invisible and their consequences aren't immediate or local.
70
They impact future people and people far away, those who are different from us, poorer than us, people we will never meet.
71
This may be one of the first challenges advancing civilizations face, wielding not just the power of technology and distributed cognition,
72
but also the responsibilities.
73
Extending the mind is really cool, but whether or not a species can extend their empathy might be a great filter.
74
Surely, reasoning will allow us to do that, right?
75
Well, what is reasoning?
76
Well, reasoning is a way of making inferences.
77
An inference is a piece of new information extracted from the information you already have.
78
We make inferences all the time.
79
Every living thing does.
80
For example, we don't have measuring tape tentacles that shoot from our eyes.
81
And what actually enters our brain is just a 2D image but nonetheless, our brains can infer depth by attending to cues like stereopsis,
82
occultation, perspective, parallax, size.
83
Now, when this happens, we accept it as reality.
84
We aren't aware of the visual processing that made it possible, and we don't have to be.
85
If, however, we do consciously consider why a certain conclusion was reached, well then, boom, that's reasoning.
86
Reasoning is the process of making inferences not automatically and instinctively, but by looking at facts and seeing what conclusions they support.
87
When Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth to within a percentage or two of the value accepted today,
88
he didn't do it by measuring the Earth and he didn't just perceive it as self -evident.
89
No, he inferred it from what he knew about shadows and how long it took camels to move.
90
Stories like that make it easy to believe that reasoning evolved because it supercharged our cognitive abilities.
91
I mean, it clearly moves us towards truer conclusions, better decisions and knowledge no other species could infer.
92
Attempts to describe the rules of good orderly reason became logic and mathematics,
93
concepts so general and abstract that while we were still animals.
94
Armed with them, we were no longer beasts.
95
But that's the rub, isn't it?
96
If reasoning is so great, why are we the only species with such a sophisticated grasp of it?
97
And if its purpose is truth and good judgment, why don't we all agree on everything?
98
It's tempting to think that disagreements happened because, well, I am being rational, but those who disagree with me are being irrational.
99
Ugh!
100
If only people would just use logic and reason.
101
What's happened to the world?
102
Well… That's a fair complaint if you're arguing over logic puzzles.
103
But the world is not a logic puzzle.
104
This, however, is one.
105
Paul is looking at Mary.
106
Mary is looking at Peter.
107
Paul is married.
108
Peter is unmarried.
109
Is a married person looking at an unmarried person?
110
Yes?
111
No?
112
Or not enough information to decide?
113
Think about it.
114
The answer is yes.
115
You may have thought there's no way to know because we don't know if Mary is married.
116
But look, she either is or she isn't.
117
And if she is, well then she, a married person, is looking at Peter, an unmarried person.
118
If she isn't, then Paul, a married person, is looking at her, an unmarried person.
119
So, no matter what Mary's deal is, the answer will be yes.
120
When people get this puzzle wrong and the correct answer is explained to them, they almost always immediately see why it's right and change their mind.
121
Life is not always like that.
122
Let's take a look at a logical syllogism.
123
All elephants are awesome.
124
Michael is an elephant.
125
Therefore, Michael is awesome.
126
The conclusion is logically valid.
127
It follows from the assumptions.
128
But are the assumptions true?
129
No. I am not an elephant.
130
Also, this premise is subjective.
131
I mean, what does it mean to be awesome?
132
Can we measure it with an osmometer?
133
So you can see why, when analyzing something like our impact on the planet, logic can only be a partial tool.
134
If some people have more to lose than others, who gets to decide which assumptions are fair?
135
Still though, it would seem that reasoning should be able to help here.
136
If each of us would just attend only to the facts, surely we'd all recognize the same reasonable approach.
137
Problem is, that's not how reasoning works.
138
Since the scientific study of human reasoning began about a hundred years ago, it has been found again and again that not only are we bad at reasoning,
139
lazy and biased, but we actually seem almost programmed to be bad, like the flaws are intentional.
140
In an episode of Mind Field, I once used a magician to pull off a little experiment.
141
He asked people to look at two faces and choose which of the two they would prefer to work with,
142
placing their preferences in one pile and those they rejected into another.
143
Then, the pile of people they picked were shown again, and each person was asked to provide a reason for why they chose that person.
144
But with a little sleight of hand, the magician managed to sneak in some of the faces they had just rejected.
145
Amazingly, the majority of people didn't even notice the trick.
146
Not only that, they were able to effortlessly explain the reasons behind their choice a choice they never actually made.
147
Remembering faces you've only seen briefly isn't the easiest thing to do, but other studies have shown that even if the task involves answering questions about one's political beliefs,
148
things we would seemingly have a firmer grasp on, nearly half of participants will fail to notice
149
that the answers they gave have been reversed when they're later asked to explain them.
150
Point is, we seem practically built to give reasons for whatever we think we must
151
and not the reasons we actually used to reach a conclusion.
152
What if we don't even use reasons to reach conclusions?
153
Well, let's talk about intuitions.
154
Our brains have evolved over millions of years to react to
155
the world around us in brilliant ways with little to no input from us.
156
For example, when you notice that someone is upset, you don't consciously think, hmm,
157
okay, so, uh, well, their eyebrows are kind of in that position and their speech seems curt, their posture is, these are all reasons to conclude that they are upset.
158
No. Instead, the belief that they may be upset was just apparent.
159
You intuited it.
160
You know it without exactly knowing how you came to know it.
161
The mood -recognizing parts of your brain operate in a way that is opaque to your awareness.
162
But if someone asks you, why do you think they're upset?
163
You can nonetheless produce all sorts of reasons.
164
Some may have actually been the ones your brain attended to, but they're all just guesses.
165
Instead of using reasoning, You to come to conclusions, we use conclusions to come to reasons.
166
Now to be fair, we can go the other way.
167
We love puzzles and when we don't have a strong intuition either way, we can sit down and mull over various reasons to think one thing or another.
168
Our love of puzzles suggests that reasoning has a survival value.
169
Organisms that found it pleasurable would be more likely to use it.
170
But when we reason alone, even when we have no motivation to reach any particular conclusion,
171
we still exhibit deep biases that seem less like mistakes and more like features.
172
For example, it's been shown that between two otherwise similar products, people will prefer to buy the one with more functions, even if they don't want those functions,
173
never plan to use them and think they're all pointless and overly complicated.
174
Why?
175
Well, it might be that we find such decisions easier to justify to others.
176
We won't wind up being potentially embarrassed when someone asks why we didn't get the product with more functions.
177
Well after decades of findings like this, Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber began to hypothesize
178
that reasoning didn't evolve to help us make better decisions but instead to help us be social.
179
Humans inhabit a cognitive niche on this planet.
180
We aren't strong or sharp or hidden or venomous.
181
Instead, our advantage comes from cognition, reasoning, and cooperation.
182
We can plan hunts, build traps, and engage in coordinated strategies that can be tested and modified on the fly, not by millennia of evolution.
183
Reason allows us to do those things.
184
It's hard to convince people that your intuitions are true, but if you can give reasons for them, it's a whole heck of a easier to convince people that you're right.
185
Being able to argue over what the best thing to do is, is vital when it comes to coordinating action.
186
Reasons also allow us to justify ourselves in the eyes of others, to explain who we are and express the kinds of reasons we like,
187
what others can expect from us, and what we will likely expect from them.
188
This social theory of reasoning helps explain why two people can earnestly and rationally arrive at two different views.
189
They each have their own unique brain and values and dispositions and experiences and those are what drove their thinking.
190
The reasons they give may
191
or may not be the real reasons they came to their conclusions but it's the best anyone can do.
192
The social theory also explains why people tend to give such weak reasons for their beliefs at first
193
or when their intended audience doesn't need much convincing.
194
It would be a waste of time
195
and cognitive resources to construct grand slam reasons for everything I said and did and thought when it wasn't necessary.
196
Instead I can offload some of that work to other people.
197
For example, if I say I want to have lunch at ABC Burgers, well my friend might respond, ah no thanks I had burgers yesterday.
198
And I might reply back, oh well that's no problem.
199
They also have hot dogs and great salads.
200
But if my friend said, no thanks, I'm trying to spend less money eating out this month,
201
I could reply, oh well ABC Burgers is really cheap and I've got a coupon.
202
Now what's going on here is that I'm providing reasons only as my friend presses for them.
203
If they press harder and harder my reasons will become better
204
and better until either I win them over or we come to some different more harmonious decision.
205
So when people appear to be lazy reasoners or to have bad reasons or none at all,
206
it's usually just the case that they're using reason as it evolved to function.
207
Socially.
208
It starts off weak, improving if others push it and always tailoring its work to the intended audience.
209
The social theory of reasoning can even explain the existence of biases that otherwise make little sense.
210
For For example, it would seem that in coming to conclusions about the world,
211
it would behoove an organism to pay particular attention to information that went against what it believed.
212
I mean, that way, they would be able to adjust their beliefs, making them truer, more general, and more complete.
213
To a certain extent, that is what happens, but not always.
214
When someone does their own research, they often come to the very conclusion they wanted in the first place.
215
This is called confirmation bias, our tendency to look for,
216
prefer, and interpret information so that it confirms what we already think.
217
It frustrates our ability to accept new, inconvenient data and is a problem for the intellectualist view of reason.
218
If reason is for finding truth and making better decisions, why would it have this major weakness?
219
Well, because, the social theory says, reasoning is a group activity.
220
Let's say that I think option A is true and the best and you think option B is true and the best.
221
Well, if we both researched both options and sifted through reasons in support of both options,
222
we would both have twice the work to do than we would
223
if instead I simply came up with reasons for why I was right
224
and you attended the reasons for why you were right.
225
The confirmation bias at least halves the cognitive work that must be done.
226
Now sometimes a lone reasoner will have a bad idea or a decent idea with some bad parts.
227
The reasons they have to justify for and argue for it, will be sufficient for them and those who intuitively agree, but they may be weak.
228
However, subjected to deliberation, put forth into the machine of collective thought,
229
it can be evaluated and judged not by one mind or a group of minds thinking alike, but by something very special.
230
The crowd.
231
Humans have long known of the wisdom of the crowds, the phenomenon by
232
which a collection of many Many people can process information into a conclusion better than any one person could do alone.
233
It's why we don't trust big decisions to a single person, no matter how educated or powerful they are.
234
Instead, we ask a group of people to deliberate, to reason together.
235
In this way, the biases and errors of each is smoothed out and the decision wiser.
236
In a famous example, it's been repeatedly shown that
237
if you ask a bunch of people to guess how many jelly beans are in a jar,
238
you'll find that the average of all their answers is closer to the real number than any one individual was alone.
239
What happens is that although some people may guess a number that is like way too big,
240
that mistake is balanced out by the fact that others will inevitably guess a number that is way too small.
241
Altogether, their disagreement evens out into spectacular accuracy.
242
We have now arrived at the problem.
243
Reasoning evolved to be used socially, where many different perspectives had to all deliberate towards a common conclusion.
244
Such contexts are becoming less and less common and it is becoming easier and easier to simply be a lone reasoner,
245
justifying only a particular viewpoint without doing the harder work of deliberating and acting.
246
The internet gives voices to more perspectives than ever before in our history,
247
but it also makes it easy to disengage from accountability and to find places where everyone believes what you do.
248
Furthermore, because of technology, we confront more issues more rapidly than ever before that we are expected to have opinions about.
249
And the growing complexity and specialization of the modern world makes it difficult for each of us to have well -informed,
250
prepared reasons for the accelerating accretion of intuitions we must form.
251
In response, we look for people who can defend our intuitions for us.
252
The reasons they give don't have to be good, just good enough that we can feel like justification exists.
253
In the past, unconvincing reasons had to be painted on sandwich boards,
254
but now the democratization of communication means that even unpopular,
255
unconvincing, nonsensical ideas can be presented with the same trust -inducing typefaces and professional look as common ones.
256
People can challenge the weak reasons of others, show them to be contradictory and produce better reasons for their side, but to what end?
257
It's all preparation for a debate that never comes.
258
We each play a very small role in deciding how society is run.
259
Even if a good -faith discussion between a representative slice of America came to a resolution, if nothing can come of it,
260
why not just throw shade and sick burns
261
or revel in the pleasure of reasoning by treating everything like a big giant puzzle?
262
It's easy to think that it doesn't matter.
263
Because after all, those in charge, the brilliant scientists and powerful billionaires, will surely come to the rescue.
264
Some giant techno -salvation is surely on the horizon.
265
Perhaps it is.
266
But everything we know about reason suggests that those implementing it should be held accountable by as many different perspectives. as possible.
267
Leaders could lead deliberations and be elected for their ability to moderate social reasoning, but that's boring.
268
Why lead when you could follow?
269
Look at what some people believe and generate reasons for why they're right and they'll love it.
270
Of course, the hard work, the real work, the work that truly elevates us on this planet is not in telling people that they're right,
271
but But in trying to convince others, and in doing so, use reason as it evolved to be used.
272
The future of reason may in fact be the past of reason.
273
In practice, what does all this look like?
274
Well, some researchers have gone
275
so far as to recommend National Deliberation Days where citizens celebrate by literally joining small groups
276
and talking through their opinions and comparing reasons.
277
Tests of such strategies have shown that a return to the small, targeted discussions our reasoning abilities evolve to excel in leaves all
278
participants with a greater understanding of not just what they believe and why, but about decisions that could actually be made and actions that could be taken.
279
Others have gone even further, recommending that the future of reason at its best is the construction of a latocracy.
280
A form of government where decisions are made not by elected leaders, but by people literally chosen at random.
281
We decide the fate of a person this way.
282
Why not the fate of the people?
283
What if decisions were made not by politicians alone, but at least occasionally by groups of actual citizens representing differences in thought,
284
not just geography, who were brought together
285
and paid for their time to learn from experts and then deliberate on an assigned issue until a conclusion was reached or, at the least, a recommendation.
286
Instead of being motivated by re -election, money, attention, and power, individuals chosen at random would have only their conscience to guide them.
287
Special interests and corporations wouldn't be able to cozy up to those likely to be elected
288
because if any one of us could someday serve, they'd have to cozy up to and protect all of us.
289
Instead of the learning and deliberation being done by people you will never meet with offices and buildings you can't access,
290
gradually over time more and more of your very own neighbors would have had the honor.
291
People chosen at random would obviously lack the same celebrity status and mandate that elected leaders cultivate and achieve.
292
And iconic figures we relate to aren't bad, but our understanding of reasoning is making it more and more clear
293
that we evolved not to leave the thinking up to a few great minds, but to the authority of the great mind.
294
The lumbering organ of thought that is everyone and everything.
295
This is, in fact, how democracy first worked.
296
Lotteries were used to fill many political positions in ancient Athens, Aristotle explained that the appointment of magistrates by lot is thought to be democratic,
297
and the election of them is oligarchic.
298
An oligarchy is government by only a small number of people.
299
Look, regardless of how reason is brought back to its social roots,
300
if we can build more and better arenas for deliberation and use them to apply reason properly to hyperobjects,
301
like the impact of our emissions on the planet, we'll have taught one heck of a lesson to people a hundred, a thousand years in the future.
302
I like to think that although widening participation will be difficult, it might provide us with a kind of existential security.
303
The impact of emissions on our planet is not going to be the last hyperobject we face.
304
If we can do a good job with it, maybe far in the future, when our civilization has advanced to the point at which, I don't know, people can be quantumly recreated or something,
305
they'll look back at our time and say, hey, let's bring them all back to life.
306
We could use the cooperative abilities they had then.
307
Ultimately, the old saying that history is the great teacher isn't a bad guide.
308
We will all someday be teachers ourselves.
309
Because someday, we will all be history.
310
We will someday be the ancients.
311
And we can choose what that will mean.
312
And as always, thanks for watching.
313
Thank you.
📺 Cùng kênh
B21
What's Inside My Spherical Die?
American AccentUniversity Students
B21
A Cosmic Coincidence
American AccentUniversity Students
B14
My Dad Ranking
American AccentTeensDaily ConversationHigh School Students
C1Is Anything Real?
American AccentUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B21
Why Are Things Creepy?
American AccentDaily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B24
I Built An Emordnilap Machine
American AccentUniversity Students
C15
Why Are Things Cute?
American AccentUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C14
The Banach–Tarski Paradox
American AccentUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C1All The Ghosts You Will Be
American AccentIELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
✨ Video gợi ý
C157
66 câu
What science can’t answer, according to physicist Jim Al-Khalili | Big Think
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C185 câu
We Can Now Simulate a Human Brain, Scientists Show
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C11
146 câu
The Most Complex Language in the World
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C12
530 câu
Human Immortality 4K | Can Science Defeat Aging?
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C15
54 câu
Why is walking humans’ superpower? – C1 English Listening Test
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C1121
29 câu
The Neuroscience of Creativity
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
B27
14 câu
Would You Upload Your Mind?
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C15
39 câu
The Strange Science of Why We Dream
American AccentIELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C14
131 câu
The medicine myth | Denis Noble, Nessa Carey, Guy Brown
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C18
30 câu
Technology Made Us Human
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C13
85 câu
AI Will End Philosophy, Physicist Claims
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C13
32 câu
Lucy: Time is Unity (HD CLIP)
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
Từ vựng và ghi chú luyện nói cho bài học này
Video này có 313 câu và 4340 từ để luyện shadowing. Phần lời nói dài 29:57. Người nói giữ tốc độ đều, khoảng 145 từ mỗi phút, vừa sức để nói đuổi theo. 83% số từ nằm trong 3.000 từ tiếng Anh thông dụng nhất; phần còn lại nên xem trước khi luyện.
Từ vựng quan trọng trong video
15 từ đáng học trong video, kèm phiên âm và nghĩa:
| Từ | Phiên âm | Nghĩa |
|---|---|---|
| conclusion danh từ | /kənˈkluːʒən/ | kết thúc |
| puzzle danh từ | /ˈpʌzəl/ | sự bối rối, sự khó xử |
| bias danh từ | /ˈbaɪ.əs/ | thiên vị, thiên kiến |
| organism danh từ | /ˈɔɹ.ɡəˌnɪz.əm/ | sinh vật |
| argue động từ | /ˈɑɹ.ɡju/ | tranh luận |
| solve động từ | /sɒlv/ | giải quyết |
| filter danh từ | /ˈfɪltɚ/ | máy lọc |
| convince động từ | /kənˈvɪns/ | thuyết phục |
| organ danh từ | /ˈɔːɡən/ | cơ quan |
| consequence danh từ | /ˈkɑn.sɪ.kwəns/ | hậu quả |
| disaster danh từ | /dɪˈzɑːs.təː/ | tai hoạ, thảm hoạ |
| fate danh từ | /feɪt/ | số phận, số mạng |
| lazy tính từ | /ˈleɪ̯zi(ː)/ | lười biếng, lười |
| confirmation danh từ | /ˌkɑn.fəɹˈmeɪ.ʃən/ | sự xác nhận |
| elephant danh từ | /ˈɛlɪfənt/ | voi |
Cụm động từ bạn sẽ nghe
| Từ | Nghĩa |
|---|---|
| bring up động từ | nuôi nấng, nuôi |
| sit down động từ | ngồi xuống, ngồi |
Ngữ pháp trong video
Những cấu trúc người nói dùng nhiều nhất, kèm đúng cụm từ trong video:
| Cấu trúc | Trong video |
|---|---|
| Câu điều kiện if + mệnh đề, will/would + động từ — điều kiện và kết quả | If only people would just · If each of us would just |
| Thì hiện tại hoàn thành have/has + quá khứ phân từ — việc đã xảy ra nhưng còn liên quan đến hiện tại | we've built · haven't found · we've become |
| Câu bị động be + quá khứ phân từ — nhấn vào việc xảy ra, không phải người làm | is said · are expected · was installed |
| Mệnh đề quan hệ who / which + mệnh đề — thêm thông tin về người hoặc vật | those who are · those who disagree · those who intuitively |
Phát âm cần chú ý
Người nói dùng 63 dạng rút gọn, ví dụ don't, isn't, they're. Hãy nói theo dạng ngắn đúng như bạn nghe.
- Âm “th”: nonetheless /ˌnʌnðəˈlɛs/, furthermore /ˈfɜː(ɹ).ðə(ɹ)ˌmɔː(ɹ)/, mathematics /mæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪks/
- Âm “sh” và “zh”: conclusion /kənˈkluːʒən/, assumption /əˈsʌm(p).ʃ(ə)n/, emission /ɪˈmɪʃ.ən/, sufficient /səˈfɪʃənt/, confirmation /ˌkɑn.fəɹˈmeɪ.ʃən/
- Từ dài — đặt trọng âm cho đúng: organism /ˈɔɹ.ɡəˌnɪz.əm/, behavioral /bɪˈheɪvjəɹəl/, deliberate /dɪˈlɪb.(ə.)ɹət/, confirmation /ˌkɑn.fəɹˈmeɪ.ʃən/, complexity /kəmˈplɛk.sɪ.ti/
Cách luyện với video này
- Nghe hết video một lần, chưa cần nói, và ghi lại những từ bạn chưa biết.
- Nói đuổi từng câu ở tốc độ bình thường, lặp lại mỗi câu đến khi nhịp của bạn khớp với người nói.
- Ghi âm giọng mình rồi so với bản gốc, chú ý các từ như conclusion, puzzle, bias.
Phương Pháp Shadowing Là Gì?
Shadowing là kỹ thuật học ngôn ngữ có cơ sở khoa học, ban đầu được phát triển cho chương trình đào tạo phiên dịch viên chuyên nghiệp và được phổ biến rộng rãi bởi nhà đa ngôn ngữ học Dr. Alexander Arguelles. Nguyên lý cốt lõi đơn giản nhưng cực kỳ hiệu quả: bạn nghe tiếng Anh của người bản xứ và lặp lại to ngay lập tức — như một "cái bóng" (shadow) đuổi theo người nói với độ trễ chỉ 1–2 giây. Khác với luyện ngữ pháp hay học từ vựng bị động, Shadowing buộc não bộ và cơ miệng phải đồng thời xử lý và tái tạo ngôn ngữ thực tế. Các nghiên cứu khoa học xác nhận phương pháp này cải thiện đáng kể phát âm, ngữ điệu, nhịp điệu, nối âm, kỹ năng nghe và độ lưu loát khi nói — đặc biệt hiệu quả cho người luyện IELTS Speaking và muốn giao tiếp tiếng Anh tự nhiên như người bản ngữ.